Follow
This week, we continue where we left off last week with Called To Communion‘s efforts to find Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church Fathers. Last week, we covered Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas of Alexandria, The Shepherd of Hermas, and Justin Martyr. In each case Called to Communion either interpolated its own beliefs into the Church Father, took the Church Father grossly out of context, or ignored the Church Father’s own statements which clarified his position. This week we cover Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus, and we find that Called to Communion continues in the same pattern.
We also begin to notice that “the laver” in the Fathers does not always refer to a washing of water, but as often refers to Christ, His death, the Scriptures, the preaching ministry of the Church, and notably God’s work of regeneration apart from water. Last week, for example, Called to Communion cited Justin Martyr as saying:
“..this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 14).
Called to Communion assumed that “this laver of repentance and knowledge” must refer to water baptism, “the water of life.” But Justin had just made a lengthy citation of Isaiah 52-54, which speaks of Jesus’ death in our place, and His washing of His people by His own blood, for “by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11). Justin was talking about the baptism that Isaiah had announced, a baptism of repentance and knowledge of God, for “Who hath believed our report?” (Isaiah 53:1). This is the “laver of repentance and knowledge” of which Justin spoke, that is, the laver of Christ and His gospel.
We point this out because our two Fathers this week, Theophilus and Irenaeus, make that same distinction, separating the laver of regeneration from the water of baptism, and Called to Communion in both cases attempts to fuse them back together.
As we did last week, we cite Called to Communion‘s evidence from the Church Father, and then follow with our analysis. Where we cite a Father, we provide a link so our readers may examine him in context for themselves.
Theophilus of Antioch (late 2nd Century)
Called to Communion: “Next consider the following quotation from St. Theophilus bishop of Antioch from 169-182:
On the fifth day [of creation] the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and very various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration, — as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God. (To Autolycus, Bk II)
White Horse Blog: Here we will simply note that Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, followed in the footsteps of his predecessor, Ignatius, and was also highly metaphorical in his writing style. As we noted in Eating Ignatius, a metaphorical writer cannot be taken literally at a point at which he was employing a metaphor. By way of example, we provide these highly metaphorical citations from Theophilus as he expounds upon the days of creation and the meaning of planets, stars, islands, the sun, the moon, etc., from the same section cited by Called to Communion:
“Consider, further, their variety, and diverse beauty, and multitude, and how through them resurrection is exhibited…”
“And we say that the world resembles the sea. For as the sea, if it had not had the influx and supply of the rivers and fountains to nourish it, would long since have been parched by reason of its saltness; so also the world, if it had not had the law of God and the prophets flowing and welling up …”
“And as in the sea there are islands, some of them habitable, and well-watered, and fruitful, with havens and harbours in which the storm-tossed may find refuge—so God has given to the world which is driven and tempest-tossed by sins, assemblies — we mean holy churches — in which survive the doctrines of the truth…”
“And as, again, there are other islands, rocky and without water, and barren, and infested by wild beasts, and uninhabitable, and serving only to injure navigators and the storm-tossed, on which ships are wrecked, and those driven among them perish—so there are doctrines of error— I mean heresies — which destroy those who approach them.” (To Autolycus, Book II.14)
“And these contain the pattern and type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God, and the moon of man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man.”
“In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.”
“For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place.”
“And those which hold the second place in brightness, are types of the people of the righteous.”
“And those, again, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which also are called planets, they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning His law and commandments.” (To Autolycus, Book II.15)
“The quadrupeds, too, and wild beasts, were made for a type of some men, who neither know nor worship God, but mind earthly things, and repent not.” (To Autolycus, Book II.17)
It is in this context that Called to Communion cites Theophilus who says that living creatures proceeding from the water typifies the “water and laver of regeneration.” Hardly evidence of Baptismal Regeneration, but rather, of a theologian appropriating the figures and types he saw in the Creation narrative. That Theophilus does not have Baptismal Regeneration in mind is quite clear from the fact that he describes, all creatures proceeding from the waters, including those creatures which signify the unregenerate.
As we read Theophilus in his complete context, we invite our readers to note that all creatures proceed from the water (Genesis 1:20), but not all that proceed from the water are born again, but only they who “come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” Thus does Theophilus separate regeneration from water baptism. Note well that covetous men, transgressors, robbers, murderers, and godless persons also proceed through the water, but to no effect, thus defeating Called to Communion‘s argument for Baptismal Regeneration from Theophilus:
“On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and very various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God. But the monsters of the deep and the birds of prey are a similitude of covetous men and transgressors. For as the fish and the fowls are of one nature,— some indeed abide in their natural state, and do no harm to those weaker than themselves, but keep the law of God, and eat of the seeds of the earth; others of them, again, transgress the law of God, and eat flesh, and injure those weaker than themselves: thus, too, the righteous, keeping the law of God, bite and injure none, but live holily and righteously. But robbers, and murderers, and godless persons are like monsters of the deep, and wild beasts, and birds of prey; for they virtually devour those weaker than themselves. The race, then, of fishes and of creeping things, though partaking of God’s blessing, received no very distinguishing property.” (To Autolycus, Book II.16)
Had Called to Communion read Theophilus in his complete context, they would have seen that it is by “coming to the truth,” that is, by the preaching of the Word, that men are born again, and the water is merely a signification of it. When Theophilus speaks literally of rebirth, he speaks of the preaching of the Word:
“Who is the Physician? God, who heals and makes alive through His word and wisdom. God by His own word and wisdom made all things; for
by His word were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.… For God will raise your flesh immortal with your soul; and then, having become immortal, you shall see the Immortal, if now you believe in Him; and then you shall know that you have spoken unjustly against Him.” (To Autolycus, Book I.7)
Thus we see that not all who pass through the waters come to life, but only “as many as come to the truth, and are born again” by the Word. It is they who “receive repentance and remission of sins … and receive blessing from God,” for He “makes alive through His word and wisdom.”
As with Ignatius of Antioch last week, Theophilus of Antioch also provides “proof” of Confirmational Regeneration, if Called to Communion were to use their approach consistently. When he explains the title “Christian,” Theophilus says we enter into this new life by oil:
“And about your laughing at me and calling me
Christian,you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? … Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.” (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book I.12)
Do we not, by the reasoning of Called to Communion, here have proof of Confirmational Regeneration in the early Church? Far from it. Our point here is the same as with his predecessor, Ignatius. If Called to Communion can find Baptismal Regeneration in Theophilus, then they have also found Confirmational Regeneration, for he says just as we enter “into this life” by being anointed with oil, so do we become Christians by being “anointed with the oil of God.”
How does Theophilus view rebirth? We need only read his explanation of his own conversion, by which example he points Autolycus to the Word of God which “heals and makes alive”:
“Therefore, do not be sceptical, but believe; for I myself also used to disbelieve that this would take place, but now, having taken these things into consideration, I believe. At the same time, I met with the sacred Scriptures of the holy prophets, who also by the Spirit of God foretold the things that have already happened,…. Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve, but I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eternal punishments, … But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures.” (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book I.14)
Nary a word about the baptismal font. Clearly Theophilus is consistent in this: new life is by the preaching and reading of the Word, and it is to the Word, not the baptismal font, that he sends Autolycus for rebirth and eternal life.
Irenaeus (late 2nd Century)
Called to Communion: “Next consider the second century bishop of Lyon, St. Irenaeus (b. 115-130, d. around 200 AD). In his work titled Against Heresies, he writes,
And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. (A.H., I.21)
And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19) … “The Lord also promised to send the Comforter, who should join us to God (St. John. 16:7). For as a compacted lump of dough cannot be formed of dry wheat without fluid matter, nor can a loaf possess unity, so, in like manner, neither could we, being many be made one in Christ Jesus without the water from heaven. And as dry earth does not bring forth unless it receive moisture, in like manner we also, being originally a dry tree, could never have brought forth fruit unto life without the voluntary rain from above. For our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorruption; but our souls by means of the Spirit. Wherefore both are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God.” (A.H., III.17)
Notice that we are “joined to God”, made “one in Christ” [that is, believers are made into one body, Christ’s Body] by the “the water from heaven,” by which we are made alive (i.e. regenerated) in order to bring forth fruit unto life. For St. Irenaeus, to be joined to Christ is to be joined to His Mystical Body (the Church) through baptism. St. Irenaeus calls baptism that “laver which leads to incorruption.” Through baptism our physical bodies are protected from eternal corruption, and our souls, by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the baptismal water, are made participants in the life of God.
White Horse Blog: Two principles of Irenaeus’ teaching must be brought forth at this point: 1) In Irenaeus, baptism at times includes the catechesis, i.e., the instruction in the Word, which is received prior to the application of water, and 2) regeneration is by the instruction, and not by the application of water. This is evident from his explicit teachings.
First, note that Irenaeus understood that “baptism,” as he uses it, included instruction and information that could not have possibly been imparted by the water. Explaining how heretics misuse the texts of Scripture, he notes that a well-trained Christian will recognize the error:
“Then, again, collecting a set of expressions and names scattered here and there [in Scripture], they twist them, as we have already said, form a natural to a non-natural sense. … What simple-minded man would not be led away by such verses…? But if he takes them and restores each of them to its proper position, he at once destroys the narrative in question. In like manner he who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of faith which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognize the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 9.4)
We know well enough that “the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from Scriptures” are not imparted by the application of water, but by rigorous instruction in the Word of God leading up to it. Thus, it is clear that Irenaeus’ concept of “baptism” as a sacrament included the catechesis leading up to the rite, just as we saw in Justin Martyr last week. Otherwise, we have from Irenaeus a case for immediate knowledge of the Word of God by the application of water alone—a form of baptismal osmosis. Clearly this is not what Irenaeus had in mind. Rather, he had in mind the knowledge imparted by the instruction in the Word of God. Nobody emerges from the water with the “names, the expressions, and the parables taken from Scriptures” in his heart unless they were already there to begin with.
It is this instruction prior to baptism that is the effectual means of regeneration, as Irenaeus plainly declares in his Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching. Note well that those who “learn of Christ” and “believe on Him” are “at once … changed” by a “great transformation,” and they “live in newness by the Word, through faith”:
“For those who were before exceeding wicked, so that they left no work of ungodliness undone, learning of Christ and believing on Him, have at once believed and been changed, so as to leave no excellency of righteousness undone; so great is the transformation which faith in Christ the Son of God effects for those who believe on Him.” (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 61)
“That He would not send back the redeemed to the legislation of Moses—for the law was fulfilled in Christ—but would have them live in newness by the Word, through faith in the Son of God and love, Isaiah declared, saying: ‘Remember not the former things, nor bring to mind the things that were in the beginning. Behold I make new (things), which shall now spring up, and ye shall know (them). And I will make in the wilderness a way, and in the waterless place streams, to give drink to my chosen race, and to my people whom I have purchased to declare my virtues.’ Now a wilderness and a waterless place was at first the calling of the Gentiles: for the Word had not passed through them, nor given them the Holy Spirit to drink; who fashioned the new way of godliness and righteousness, and made copious streams to spring forth, disseminating over the earth the Holy Spirit; even as it had been promised through the prophets, that in the end of the days He should pour out the Spirit upon the face of the earth.” (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 89)
Those are not the words of a man who believes that regeneration is by the application of water in baptism.
Having shown that Irenaeus at some places understood baptism to include rigorous instruction in the Word of God, we can see how he could say, as Called to Communion quotes him, that “denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, [is] … a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.” Of course it is, for in the catechizing leading up to the water is the regeneration that the water then signifies, and rejection of “baptism” is the rejection of all that is taught leading up to the application of water. As we noted, Irenaeus included in “baptism” that instruction in the Word of God which “makes new.”
Let us now return to Called to Communion‘s citation from Against Heresies, in which Irenaeus says,
“For our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorruption; but our souls by means of the Spirit. Wherefore both are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 17.2)
In this Chapter, Irenaeus was refuting the Valentinian, or Gnostic, heresy that it was not the Spirit, but “Christ [Who] descended upon Jesus” at His baptism, and “that the so-called superior Saviour [came down] upon the dispensational one” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 17.1). The error being refuted was that “[t]hese men do, in fact, set the Spirit aside altogether; they understand that Christ was one and Jesus another” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 17.1).
Irenaeus counters this by saying that it was the Spirit Who came down upon Jesus, for we need both for salvation—Jesus and the Holy Spirit—for Jesus Himself is the water of life, and the Spirit is given as well. Called to Communion, in its truncated reading of Irenaeus, understood him to be referring to the water of the Roman baptismal font along with the Holy Spirit, as if both were necessary for attaining eternal life. In context however, Irenaeus says Jesus is the laver of incorruption, and the Holy Spirit is given as well, for “both are necessary, since both [Jesus and the Spirit] contribute towards the life of God.” Here is Irenaeus in his full context, and we note that the water Irenaeus has in mind is water of Christ springing up from within unto eternal life, and as we noted at the beginning, it is Christ Who is this “laver” of incorruption:
“For our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorruption; but our souls, by means of the Spirit. Wherefore both are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God, our Lord compassionating that erring Samaritan woman — who did not remain with one husband, but committed fornication by [contracting] many marriages— by pointing out, and promising to her living water, so that she should thirst no more, nor occupy herself in acquiring the refreshing water obtained by labour, having in herself water springing up to eternal life. The Lord, receiving this as a gift from His Father, does Himself also confer it upon those who are partakers of Himself, sending the Holy Spirit upon all the earth.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 17.2)
Called to Communion continues with Irenaeus:
Called to Communion: “In Book Five of Against Heresies, he writes:
And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which, was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration, [the Lord] said to him [upon whom He had conferred sight], after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, “Go to Siloam, and wash;” John 9:7 thus restoring to him both [his perfect] confirmation, and that regeneration which takes place by means of the laver. And for this reason when he was washed he came seeing, that he might both know Him who had fashioned him, and that man might learn [to know] Him who has conferred upon him life. (A.H., V.15)
White Horse Blog: We find here again how freely Called to Communion decontextualizes Irenaeus. As Irenaeus makes quite clear, he uses the occasion of the blind man’s healing to make a connection between the first birth and our regeneration. In so doing, Irenaeus indicates that the blind man’s eyes were regenerated by the mud, and not the water. Just as Adam was formed of earth, the visual organs were re-formed in the blind man by the mud Jesus fashioned from His spittle. He was then sent to wash the mud from his eyes which by then had already been regenerated. In other words, the washing in the Pool of Siloam did not regenerate the eyes, but rather washed eyes that had already been regenerated. This is clearly Irenaeus’ position:
“For, from the earth out of which the Lord formed eyes for that man, from the same earth it is evident that man was also fashioned at the beginning. For it were incompatible that the eyes should indeed be formed from one source and the rest of the body from another; as neither would it be compatible that one [being] fashioned the body, and another the eyes. But He, the very same who formed Adam at the beginning, … revealing Himself in these last times to men, formed visual organs for him who had been blind [in that body which he had derived] from Adam.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 15.4)
Thus does Ireneaus teach clearly that the water is administered to those who are already regenerated, just as the water of Siloam was afterward applied to a man whose visual organs had already been repaired by the mud.
Called to Communion continues with Irenaeus:
Called to Communion: “St. Irenaeus says elsewhere:
“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth unto God, that we be no more children of mortal men, but of the eternal everlasting God; and that the eternal and everlasting One is God, and is above all creatures, and that all things whatsoever are subject to Him; and that what is subject to Him was all made by Him; so that God is not ruler and Lord of what is another’s, but of His own, and all things are God’s; that God, therefore, is the Almighty, and all things whatsoever are from God.” (The Proof of Apostolic Preaching)
In one of the fragments, St. Irenaeus writes:
“And dipped himself,” says [the Scripture], “seven times in Jordan.” (2 Kings 5:14) It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5) (Fragments, 34)
Notice that St. Irenaus says that the Christians receive baptism “for the remission of sins.” There can be no justification without the forgiveness of sins. And hence if baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, then it is through baptism that we are justified.”
White Horse Blog: Here, we will defer to what we wrote above on Irenaeus. Irenaeus occasionally writes of the Holy Spirit being imparted to them that believe the knowledge they received of Christ (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 41), and at other times that “knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit” (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 7). These seemingly contradictory statements can only be understood by reading Irenaeus’ explicit words on the topic. It is true that in Fragment 34 he says we are made new “by means of the sacred water,” but in Fragment 36, those who “deny one’s self and to follow Christ … [become] sons of God by spiritual regeneration” with no mention of baptism, and Fragment 50 speaks of “all those who believe unto life,” with no mention of baptism.
It is clear that in Irenaeus regeneration occurs instantaneously with belief in the preached Word, just as regeneration of the blind man’s eyes occurred by mud before the eyes were washed in the Pool of Siloam. Because baptism in Irenaeus at times includes the instruction by which men are regenerated, and therefore baptism is at some times called “rebirth unto God,” it is clear that Irenaeus did not attribute regeneration to the water but to the ministry of the Spirit and the Word. Called to Communion therefore has no basis for imputing Baptismal Regeneration to Irenaeus.
Next week we will cover Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Hippolytus.
Tim, another great piece to be commended on. As an example, I went on Called to communion last night and Bryan Cross was in a discussion about justification. He pulls out a quote from Origen which was to be a rebuttal of Luther’s contention simultaneously sinner and saint. In the Quote Origen says that a true christian does not sin, and the just of the quote was how Christians are to be without sin. But in the beginning of the quote Origen say having faith, and being justified. Bryan ignores this part and makes the the rests of Origen’s quote ( that Christians don’t sin) as the process for justification. Very instructive. Read Roman doctrine, believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth.
Tim, the leap for Rome in infant baptism ex opere operato makes their church the determiner of salvation, and not the Spirit. Again this is a part of the larger theme in Rome that the church usurps the position of Christ and the Spirit and becomes the determiner of salvation instead of the Spirit blowing where and how He wills. It is a human institution which becomes more human everyday. The church can lead men to faith, but it cannot substitute itself for the natural body of Christ or the Spirit and take away the sovereignty of God. The church is the recipient of God’s grace, not the provider, thats the Job of the Spirit. Christ came to incorporate us into His body thru the Spirit, not the flesh. And infant baptism ex opere operato can’t replace God’s election to eternal life.. Baptism can only be a sign and seal of the reality that is brought about thru the laver of regeneration, the Spirit thru hearing the word. God Bless
Kevin,
Yes, just as when Irenaeus was refuting the Valentinian error and insisted that both Jesus and the Spirit are necessary, “since both contribute towards the life of God,” Called to Communion ended up requiring both the baptismal font and the Spirit, to the exclusion of Christ.
Called to Communion would never explicitly state that Christ was not necessary for rebirth, but when Irenaeus is read out of the context of rebutting the Valentinian error, this is precisely what Called to Communion does.
Next week when we read Hippolytus, we will see that he explicitly refers to Jesus’ Passion as “the laver” of washing. As this pattern is repeatedly established, we find that the Fathers saw Christ as the laver which replaced and nullified the Jewish washings with water. This is why both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus rebuke the Jews for trusting in physical washing that only cleanses the body, but does not cleanse the soul, and so sends the Jews to Christ, His Word, His Passion and all that the prophets had foretold about Him. As Justin Martyr stated, those who already trust in Christ go down into the water as a public dedication.
But Rome would have us trust in the water itself, and thus does Rome resurrect “that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13), and try to turn the Gospel back into the Jewish Law.
Thanks,
Tim
We’ll Ireaneaus still suggests that baptism is necessary for salvation. The way he quotes John 3:5 suggests so
” that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” Was Iranaeus disagreeing with Paul?
I am simply pointing out that Ireanaeus clearly believed in baptismal regeneration
Tony, would you agree, then, that Irenæus believed we should drink the water of baptism? He said,
So based on this, the water that brings about regeneration is water that we are to drink?
Thanks,
Tim
That’s just an out of context citation. The fact that you are trying to prove the impossible should be enough for anyone to put doubt on what you are trying to do
Tony, you wrote,
Based on what? I provided you the exact words, and the reference so you could look it up for yourself. How was it out of context?
Tim
You are reading your own ideas into the text that’s why.
Tony, I have merely asked your opinion on the passage. How can that possibly be construed as “reading my own ideas into it”? My question is do you think that he meant we are to drink the baptismal waters? It’s a simple question.
Tim
Tim, this is a really interesting point. Eric W and I have had discussions about philosophical categories used to described what is injected into the Roman Catholic. I believe we are offered a person, Christ, and not a derivative off that person. EricW rightly points out we possess the Spirit of Christ, which is Christ in our heart and the Spirit. The reason we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone is because only faith can receive the gift , Christ, and bring Him to the heart which justifies us. This comes from outside and is all a work of the spirit thru the Word. His perfect righteousness that justifies us is imparted to us, yet incompletely for righteous living and we must be renovated by the spirit each day. But this renovation ( sanctification) is not to be confused with justification which is only thru faith and nothing coming form ourselves. IOW we don’t look to Christ for justification and to our own works for sanctification, but it is all a work of God thru faith. Your thoughts?
Yes, that is right. “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace” (Romans 4:16). If it is not by faith, it is by a work, and then not by grace at all.
Additionally, sanctification is not by our works, but by the Truth (John 17:17). Good works are the fruit of sanctification, but are not the sanctification itself.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I meant to say also that love cannot justify because it reaches out to our neighbor and is always second in natural order, although of the utmost importance to God. It however cannot replace what God intended for faith. Hebrews tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God, and 1 John tells us by it we overcome the world. Calvin said even the weakest faith still embraces justification in Christ.
Tim, nicely put. Piper says that sanctification is a work of God. We simply live out the miracle. You agree?
Tim, I know people give me allot bunk for praising your work here. But if you knew me you would know I exalt no man, only our Lord. But this ministry has changed my walk and has been more truth than any seminary class I have ever taken. I really pray you will continue in this vein because i believe you maybe more than anyone i have ever read are methodically unravelling the lie of Roman catholicism and its apostasy from the true church. This site has emboldened me to fight this error. And Eric W has been really good at getting me to focus on my sanctification and understanding how we are to behave and be loving in our approach. You both have been consistent at that. I believe this with all my heart Tim, read Roman doctrine and believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth. Antithesis must be antichrist. Satan turns things around and makes the lie look like truth. This peace on the reverse of the role of baptism is just another evidence. Just like one mediator really meaning many or no more sacrifices for sin meaning continual. There are reformed on Jason’s site that believe the only difference is our positions on perseverance. But i submit that Rome’s entire Christology is heretical. Denying Christ’s exclusive role as mediator between man and God, making Mary co-mediator and deny the exclusivity of His redemptive work, making Mary co-redemptrix it credits Mary with a perpetual salvific role that she continues to obtain by her constant intercession, the graces needed for salvation, denies the sufficiency of His redemptive work, Him perpetually on the cross as an eternal victim, not allowing Him to be Lord and Savior. It truly is another Jesus is Rome. One who resides in a piece of bread, so that one is to worship the elements opposed to the one who asks us to worship Him in Spirit and truth.
Tim,
Aren’t you embarrassed by this bootlicker?
Tim, I am so impressed that you are discovering things in the fathers that no other protestant for the past 500 years discovered. What is your secret?
Jim,
Since Irenaeus’ Demonstrations was not discovered until 1904, at least 400 years of Protestants had no access to it.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, you accuse me of bootlicking. Mary, the Pope ,your doing more than boot licking. The new Reformed me won’t allow me to say what I really want to say. Someone that passes out plastic rosaries on the corner shouldn’t be lecturing me on encouraging Tim in his ministry.
Tim, if you get a chance, you have to go on called to communion and read my exchange with Bryan Cross on a Origen quote that he misuses out of context. It is instructive of what they have done here with baptism.
Tim, Dave Anders from called to communion has asked me to summarize your position on Romans 2. I told him to come here and read your article. I also alerted them that you have written a retort to their position on baptism, which they seemed interested in knowing. K
Thanks, Kevin,
We’ll see if they stop by. Last night I was getting server errors from Called to Communion, and was unable to find your dialogue with them. I did find it this morning.
Thanks for the heads up.
Tim
Tim, I’ve been getting a no bandwidth message on Jason’s site. don’t know if he permanently cut me off, or his site is down. If you find out let me know. Thanks. Oh and Dave Anders gives his testimony, which is so long, on Called to Communion. You’ll have to see my post to Him under it. I really believe these Protestants who leave for Rome had no faith and I think as the writer of Hebrews warns us that the need for a physical altar, physical sacrifice, and physical Priesthood is a shrinking back in faith, or a lack of it. Jesus altar, sacrifice, and Priesthood are in heaven. We are incorporated into His body thru the Spirit and not the flesh. Like the Jews in John 6 who needed the physical, I believe it is faithless. And Rome’s over realized ecclesiology and eschatology is the same problem the writer of Hebrews had with the Jews who wanted to return to the old system. Roman Catholicism is no faith, without which it is impossible to please Him. The scripture says we see in a mirror now, dimly, and then we will see face to face. We are to live by faith. Romanism is a sacramental efficacial substitute for the atonement and faith IMHO.
Kevin,
“he scripture says we see in a mirror now, dimly, and then we will see face to face. ‘
How can this dim vision in a dark mirror justify?
Timothy,
I just discovered this today and read your two articles on Baptismal Regeneration in the early church fathers. Excellent!
Finally, I found someone who had written on baptismal regeneration in the early church fathers from a Reformed Protestant perspective.
Great job. I linked to your articles at another blog I am on the team. “Beggars All Reformation and Apologetics” (with James Swan and some others)
Ken Temple
Thanks, Ken. We’ve got a couple more weeks to go in the series, which I hope you’ll enjoy as well. I’m glad this is helpful to you and your team.
Tim
Kevin Failoni pointed to this site over at Called to Communion. thanks Kevin for mentioning this over there.
Tim, Ken I think the Lord is working in a big way against the Roman error. I’m telling everybody about this site. Please read Tim’s other articles, especially “the Rise of Roman Catholicism” He is going after it hard. May God give Him speed. My rule is read Roman Doctrine and believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth. God has always preserved His catholic church, and its not Roman Catholic.
Tim, have you been on called to communion this morning. Dave Anders agrees with much of your article. Amazing. I have been watching their and Jason’ s strategy lately. its to take down imputation. Tim, Imputation is under assault for obvious reason, and sadly to say instead of Protestants defending this great doctrine, they are conceding to the synergist crowd, even in our own ranks. . I hope you can do a piece on this at some point soon.
Kevin, The obvious reason is that it isn’t true!
Jim, we’ll see.
Jim, The writer of Hebrews was exactly right that the RC sacrificial system i.e. the OT is the greatest assault on faith and lack of fait here can be. He warned them going back to imperfect sacrifices wasn’t faith but evil. Please read my post on called to communion where I document Hebrews for Dave Anders and why the write sees a return to an OT sacrificial system as a violation of faith.
WOW Kevin! Sure glad going to Mass is not a ‘going back” to an imperfect sacrifice!
Jim, going to mass ” the work of the people” is going back to an imperfect sacrifice. You can do it 1000 times and not have enough sanctifying grace for heaven.
Tim,
Feast of St. Monica. You do know the story, right?
Tim,
I pray that your affections and memories will be purified in Christ.
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.
Thank you, Eric,
Tim
Yes, thank you, Jim. Monica was Augustine’s mother.
Tim
Jim, I heard yesterday from a friend that the word Host was first used in Rome to mean “hostage” the Lord was being held hostage in the bread. Can you confirm this? When the Priest calls down Christ from heaven as O’brien says, and certain consecrated hosts are out in monstrance for adoration, is He hostage? Or may He leave and that become bread again?
Kevin,
“Host” is from the Latin “hostia” for ‘victim’ or ‘offering.’ The word “hostage” has the Latin “hostia” as its root, as do “host” (in the sense of hospitality), “hostel” and “hotel” (in which the ‘s’ was simply lost in translation).
Roman Catholicism considers Christ the hostage, victim, prisoner, etc… as you can see in the Prayer to the Divine Prisoner, which is a prayer to the piece of bread Roman Catholics worship with latria, from which word we get the word idolatry.
You will find that the apparitions of Mary delight to refer to Christ as in prison, trapped, obedient to the command of the priest, lonely, sad and incompetent, while Mary enjoys plenipotentiary powers in Heaven and on Earth, and does as ‘she’ pleases, coming and going where ‘she’ will. But ‘Jesus’ is trapped in the tabernacle, wondering when the next idolater will come to bow the knee to what will eventually end up in the latrine.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, you like Eric W keep me well informed. I feel like my knowledge has increased so much. Did you get the chance to see the statement on justification by Chrystosom I put on Jasons site. It sounds like it came from WCF. Tim I’m rather new to the Reformed in the sense I am in a bible church. The one question I have is the Sacraments. Did the Reformers require the sacraments in addition to faith to be saved, or are they confirmation of grace. I saw a Protestant criticising Horton for sorta of teaching baptismal regeneration. If sacraments are required wouldnt this be Roman like? DeMaria said today on Jasons site that grace for justification comes thru the sacraments. Sacramental efficacy in place of faith and the Atonement. I believe thru faith alone my sins are forgiven past, present andcfuture. Is this your position. Thx K
Tim, I think it would be interesting to do a piece on the development of sacramental efficacy in the church ex opera operato. I know Cyprian and Teutullian were influential. It seems this replacing the atonement and faith is a significant difference in the corruption of the gospel. The whole belief that the incarnation is still continuing thru the acts of the church and that participants are sharing in helping Him finish His incarnation and atonement and mediating their own sin in some sense is really bizarre. Its so convoluted. Just a mix mash of philosophy, paganism, idolatry, sprinkled in some Christianity, meritorious works, scapulars, rites , privileges. It makes me think of 2 corinthians 11:3 ” But I’m afraid that , as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. “
Tim, I put up yesterday morning on Jason’s site a statement on justification by Chrysostom. It is amazing ” For scripture say that faith saves us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case , tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all. Faith workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but He has forbidden us to be justified by works, precisely i order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.” Amazing, no congruous merit or increase of justification to be found. K
Kevin,
Which justification are you speaking of? Initial? Of course works don’t have a part in initial justification. Just read Trent to see that neither works nor Faith merit being put into a state of grace.
Sure, you must be speaking of progressive or final justification. James shows that Abraham was justified in Gen 22 although he was already just. ( In this passage justify means save. Read it for your self.
Final justification is all about works. Read what Jesus said about a cup of water given in His name.
Jesus was asked by a lawyer, seeking to JUSTIFY himself, what he had to do. Jesus said to love God and neighbor. Then He told the parable of the Good Samaritan. No mention of Faith Alone.
A few nights ago over burgers, Nick explained to me that the beaten man represents us. Jesus is the Samaritan and the Inn keeper the Pope. The Inn is the catholic Church.
I had never thought of it like this. Cool huh?
Jim wrote:
Jesus was asked by a lawyer, seeking to JUSTIFY himself, what he had to do. Jesus said to love God and neighbor. Then He told the parable of the Good Samaritan. No mention of Faith Alone.
Response:
Everything related to the RC gospel is here. Compare the following:
“seeking to JUSTIFY himself”
and
“that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to CONVERT THEMSELVES TO THEIR OWN JUSTIFICATION by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace” (Trent on Justification)
—————————
After Trent details all the causes of justification, it is careful to mention this:
Whence also they hear immediately the word of Christ:If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
————————–
Take a close look at Jesus and the young man. What did he say to Jesus ? He said, “All these I have kept.” Why do we not here the newly baptized say the same thing after receiving true and Christian justice and hearing Christ’s words of Law ? Jim, how would you respond to a newly baptized Christian if he said the same thing as the young man ?
———————-
I guess it makes sense. Whenever someone seeks to justify themselves, then we give the Law as Jesus did. This is why the RC and the young man continue to avoid the kingdom of heaven.
Jim, ya and over a few burgers you figured out that Mary who called Jesus here savior got transported from the inn to heaven sinless, because the Pope said so. Right
EricW, wow that verse and the canon from Trent, i just got shivered when I read that. Trent: ” To the one who works well to the end” as a reward to their merits and good works” “converted to their own justification” ” who truly merit eternal life” Paul: ” not that that of yourselves” “not of works” “free gift of eternal life” “free gift of righteousness” ” not having righteousness of my own from the law” Hope your well bro. K
Kevin,
I have the antidote for a bad case of the shivered.
It were long and troublesome to note every blunder, but there is one too important to be omitted. They add, “that when catechumens ask faith from the Church, the answer is, “If you will enter into life, keep the commandments.’” (Matthew 19:17.) Wo to their catechumens, if so hard a condition is laid upon them! For what else is this but to lay them under an eternal curse, since they acknowledge with Paul, that all are under the curse who are subject to the law? (Galatians 3:10.) But they have the authority of Christ! I wish they would observe to what intent Christ thus spake. This can only be ascertained from the context, and the character of the persons. He to whom Christ replies had asked, What must I do to have eternal life? Assuredly, whosoever wishes to merit life by works, has a rule prescribed to him by the law, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But attention must be paid to the object of this as intimated by Paul, viz., that man experiencing his powers, or rather convinced of his powerlessness, may lay aside his pride, and flee all naked to Christ. There is no room for the righteousness of faith until we have discovered that it is in vain that salvation is promised us by the law. But that which the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God performed by his own Son, by expiating our sins through the sacrifice of his death, so that his righteousness is fulfilled in us. But so preposterous are the Fathers of Trent, that while it is the office of Moses to lead us by the hand to Christ, (Galatians 3:24,) they lead us away from the grace of Christ to Moses.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/calvin_trentantidote.html
God bless you
Eric, man that is good stuff. I’m hanging with you and Tim. This site is exposing the underbelly of Roman Catholicism. What you just said and what Tim is teaching us is peeling back the layers with the Scripture which “is more active than a two edged sword.” K Praise God for it was for freedom He set us free.
EricW, I just read Hodges take on Romans 8:3-4 which is just packed with information. ” For what the Law could not do, weak as it was thru the flesh> ” GOD DID” sending His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the RROTL might be fulfilled “in us” (not by us) who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Substitution “Isaiah 53″ Justification” He lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness so that we might be justified, those who walk according to the Spirit. Is there any doubt that thru faith in union with Christ brings justification, adoption, inheritance etc. Born under the law to redeem those under the law, He came to fulfill the law, and accomplished all the Father had given Him to do. Being in Christ by faith alone allows us to pass out of judgement, out of death into eternal life. Sacramental Efficacy ex opere operato is as the writer of Hebrews told the the Jews a shrinking back from faith. For christ came to incorporate us into His body thru the Spirit and not the flesh, thru faith. Sacraments can only be the signs and seals, the confirmation of grace. K
Kevin, you wrote:
Sacramental Efficacy ex opere operato is as the writer of Hebrews told the the Jews a shrinking back from faith.
It is distorted and you have a grip on the truth. Take your pick…
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (John 6:28,29)
ex opere operato – by the work worked
EricW, awesome! rome has historically called the Mass “the work of the people” ( in the ongoing work to increase justification). And you hit the home run bro, the work of God is to believe in the one He has sent. Ex opere operato “the work worked, justified 5:1” Bingo Eric. Sacramental virtue climb to continual justification= a faith that is impossible to please Him, no faith at all. K
Kevin, you wrote:
Sacramental virtue climb to continual justification= a faith that is impossible to please Him, no faith at all.
Did you know that Rome teaches the sacraments are extensions of the incarnation ? The “real incarnation” answered the work question with belief, but the extensions say, “let me show you and do it to you.” They will even pervert true works of faith…
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. (James 2)
…by claiming “the work worked” can be performed by wicked ministers who will not do the works of Abraham our father. You will know them by their works.
In her was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people, of all who have been slaughtered on the earth. (Rev.18:24)
Eric, that is so true. The office of Moses leads us to Christ and Trent leads them back to the slaughter.
Eric, amazing the Calvin Link. Thanks so much bro!
Kevin,
You are more than welcome…here’s #2 of the 1/2 knockout
http://www.amazon.com/A-Reformation-Debate-John-Calvin/dp/0801023904
EricW, yes indeed, the continuing incarnation thru the acts of the church. You said something to me on the phone, the Word became flesh, they didn’t. They want to take from Him what is rightfully His, incarnation and atonement. Clever system. Keep them coming back to the Roman church for installments of justification, offering them Christ’s merits at a special price to buy off a little temporal punishment and time in Purgatory, take that selling into Purgatory for the dead saints and build castles of Gold. Spurgeon said for every ounce of Gold that went up in the church that was an ounce of grace gone out. The candles went up, the gospel went out.
EricW, check this out sacramentology of Rome, “grace is the medicine aid to earning. “
Boys,
2 Peter 3:18 and Romans 6:1 says we grow/increase in grace. James says just Abraham was further justified by his works.
Sounds a bit like an installment plan to me.
Jim,
Installment plan ? Telling Abraham to sacrifice his son was the interest payment, right ? Don’t forget Abraham considered God able to raise the dead and received his son back as a type. (Heb.11:19) God can raise my credit worthiness through the plan and interest payments. RC sacraments are collateral for risk of default.
Jim, but what it doesn’t say is by growing in grace we are earning justification. Hummm?
Kevin,
You are too dumb to realize Dave Anders landed you a haymaker on “ex opere operato”. He asked you if you would rather have a system in which grace was contingent upon the holiness/sinfulness of the ministers.
Do didn’t even notice he finished you off.
Above you talk about the wicked ministers performing the works. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. Either they work “ex opere operato” or “…by claiming “the work worked” can be performed by wicked ministers who w”.
Make up you mind Kevin. Which is it?
Eric w,
Ever read Psalm 119? You totally miss it on the Law.
Jim,
I hate every false way (Ps. 119:128) Seeking to justify yourself is a false way. (Luke 10:29; Rom. 10:3)
Kevin,
Ha! You belched,
“. This site is exposing the underbelly of Roman Catholicism.’
Yes, and it is finding a rock hard set of six pack abs ( just like mine)!
Kevin, You say Tim is helping you see so much. WOW! Nick is helping me see stuff I had previously passed over.
Wouldn’t it be great if the two of them could duke it out ( without Tim high tailing it away? )
Jim, its usually truncated Nick thats doing the hightailing.
Tim, I got booted off Jason’s site for good today and I must say I went down kicking, much of which I will be in confession about. They put a topic on the site telling me to go away. I’m honored! Most of the high church Roman Catholics told me it was all about me, I was trying to dominate the site and causing problems. Probably much of this is true and i must repent of my actions at times. But Tim I learned a great lesson that I want to share. For them the church is the gospel. And when I would constantly talk about the gospel it didn’t go well, they wanted to talk about the Roman church. Paul seemed to say that philosophy and human reason never had much use for the gospel. But it was everything to him. Jason left the gospel for the for tradition. Many confessional Reformed aren’t satisfied with their paper pope. so they go kiss the ring of the real one. The most profound thing you have said is the worship their church and their Mass. Can that save them?
Kevin,
Flatter yourself by thinking you got booted for preaching the gospel to a bunch of unregenerate romanists if you it makes you feel good about your buffoonish behavior.
In reality you know you could have stayed and blogged like a gentleman, a fellow blogger, a Christian, a decent human being. whatever. Instead, you chose to insult us and abuse the hospitality of the Catholics. You got booted for being an ape.
Then you run back here to Kauffman for an “atta boy”.
Please, Eric, Robert, Jason Loh, etc. weren’t given the bum’s rush. Only you. And don’t turn on your fellow protestants for being soft of Rome and not standing by you. Those guys are as against us as you are. They are just not as stupid and mean.
You know Kevin, you may be an older guy but you really haven’t experienced much of life. Oh, I know you say you had a rough life of dope and sin and all that before having a conversion experience. ( Haven’t we all? )
But I wonder why life never taught you compassion for others. I know and respect plenty of Protestants. You ain’t one of them. You aren’t a Protestant. You are just an anti-Catholic bigot. The kind that scared me as a kid.
Many times I railed at Jason to shut his blog down if he was unable to control your hateful messages. Better no blog than one that allows you to puke on the Eucharist and deride the Mother of God.
Please don’t lie and say how much you love Catholics and how you just want to save them from a false gospel. You would hi-5 your comrades who made hurtful remarks and ask them to cheer for you whenever you thought you scored a snotty point too. Thankfully, none of your cronies ( except Eric W ) cheer you on.
You have been posting on C2C and Dave Anders has been nice to you. You have been biting your forked tongue and pretending to be respectful. But I have your number. I know how you really want to scream “Death Wafer”in the man’s face and hurt his feelings. We both know it is just a matter of time before you get 86ed from that blog too.
You bring out the worst in people. You had me, Mikel and others hurling mean insults just to make you feel how you have made us feel.
So, just don’t think you are John the Baptist or some other martyr. You have been the worst Protestant I have known in 30 years.
Jim, if Peter werevhere himself preaching the gospel you would crucify him again, and if the Lord came back your church would crucify Him again. Oh wait you do crucify Him over and over and over. How do you think He feels having to stay on the cross and be crucified again. Your church wounds Christ, puts sacramental efficacy up in the place of the atonement, puts a piece of bread up in the place of our Savior, a few drops of water in the place of the Spirit. Next time you hate me, think about what Roman Catholicism does to Christ each day. I will apologize for my sins and I am sorry, but I will never apologize for the gospel and the sufficiency of His perfect sacrifice or His perfect Word. May God bless you Jim.